The Methods described here go into greater detail, but remain consistent
with, the original Iraq Body Count Methodology published
in 2003, and reflect the experience IBC has gained over the intervening
years.

Note that these Methods apply only to IBC’s formal output, and
not to other material such as the Recent
Events interim updates to the database, or to comment pieces – except
where these are directly informed by, or reference, the formal work.

3. Data extraction

3.1 Standardization and reliability

IBC’s data arrives in a non-standardised format: that is, it doesn’t
come to us in the convenient form of a standard questionnaire designed according
to our needs and filled out in accordance with a protocol of our choosing.
Nonetheless, experience of the nature of reporting as it obtains in the Iraq
conflict has allowed us to identify data points that are consistently, if not
perfectly, present across a wide range and large number of reports. Key and
most consistent among them are the basic data gathered of date, location, the
number of civilian deaths, and the weapons they were killed by. In all, IBC
systematically extracts 18 pieces of information in relation to each incident
and/or person killed:

1A standardised place-names transliteration
system from the Arabic into English, based on UN data, is employed to
avoid conflicting spelling conventions for Iraqi locations.

2Where individuals' names are transliterated
from the Arabic using different spelling in different English reports,
all variants are entered in the database entry for that individual.

IBC-extracted variables

For each incident

For each person

1

Date

13

Name2

2

Time

14

Age

3

Place1

15

Gender

4

Target

16

Marital status

5

Minimum deaths

17

Parental status

6

Maximum deaths

18

Occupation

7

Minimum injuries

8

Maximum injuries

9

Weapons

10

Killers

11

Media sources

12

Primary witnesses

The choice of this specific data-set is motivated by two aims central to the
project: (a) to ensure that as much detail as is feasible and practicable
is recorded in a standard format for every person killed; (b) to ensure against
double counting and reliably differentiate between similar incidents which
might be confused.

Data extraction and coding is subject to strict internal reliability checks,
with particular emphasis on the number killed. Each new data-entry is reviewed
and signed off by at least two additional volunteer data checkers prior to
publication. All past data entries are kept under review, and if necessary
modified when new information becomes available.

3.2 Treatment of inconsistencies in reporting

Reports of numbers killed often vary across sources. On-the-ground uncertainties
and potential political bias can result in a range of figures reported for
the same incident. When such variation exists and cannot be reliably reconciled,
each incident is associated with a range for the number of deaths in that
incident.

In such cases, the high end of the range (the ‘maximum’ number) is the highest
number of civilian deaths published in at least two independent sources. The
low end of the range (the ‘minimum’) is the lowest number of civilian deaths
published by two of our sources. The lower IBC number can receive an entry
of zero if two sources explicitly state that “no was one killed,” despite
two other reports stating that there were deaths. However, “unable to
confirm any deaths,” and similar forms of wording reflecting lack of
knowledge, are not considered to conflict with reports that do confirm
a number of deaths and do not lead to an entry of zero or use of the range.

Similarly, the wording “at least” preceding a death toll is not
considered to contradict a higher number, since it allows for that higher number.
Further, updates to a story, whether correcting its death toll higher or lower,
supersede numbers in early-breaking reports collected by IBC.

A range is also employed to handle uncertainties regarding potential overlaps
between separate data entries (the potential for double counting). When there
is clear or particularly likely overlap between two separate IBC entries,
the overlapping number is subtracted, requiring no range. However, in cases
where overlap is plausible but neither certain or likely, the potential overlap
is subtracted from the lower IBC number (which allows for the possibility
that an overlap does exist), but zero is subtracted from the upper IBC number
(allowing for the possibility that no overlap exists) .

Additionally, there can be uncertainty in different accounts about the civilian
status of those killed. Analysis of all available sources can often reconcile
such conflicting reports, but where these cannot be reconciled the high-low
range is again employed to reflect both possibilities, with deaths added
to the higher IBC number but not the lower one.

Where conflicting data arises from differing accounts by primary sources (e.g.,
eyewitnesses, police, medics, government and military officials), IBC adopts
a pragmatic process in choosing between them. This only assumes that people
can convey facts no more accurately than they are able to discern them.

Instead of attempting to consistently divine the ‘political’ position
of any given primary source in relation to the realities of an incident, IBC
instead takes careful account of their physical position in relation
to the pertinent facts. In short, no assumptions are made about the reliability
of primary sources, beyond that some are better placed to know the facts of
the incident than others.

Eyewitnesses may, for example, relate a bombing event vividly and exactly as
they experienced it. Nonetheless they may have seen only a limited proportion
of its victims compared to emergency medics, and consequently understate
its dead and wounded. At other times eyewitnesses may mistake the unconscious
wounded as among the dead, leading to an overstatement of the death toll.
Conversely, eyewitnesses may have more direct knowledge than medics about
whether an incident was a vehicle-borne suicide attack or a bomb planted
in a parked car, making them better placed to know those facts.

3.3 Inclusions and exclusions

The range given in the IBC count refers to civilian deaths. Use of the term
“civilian” by definition involves making a distinction between
some people and others. We determine this distinction on a case-by-case basis
through careful and systematic scrutiny of the data sources we consult.

The boundary between civilians and others is not always clear-cut. Analysis
and adjudication of this boundary can raise deep legal, moral, and philosophical
issues which are far from fully resolved. The distinctions which follow are
those we routinely apply for the purposes of the IBC project.

Excluded from IBC are those aged 18 and over who, at the point of death, were
reported as initiating deadly violence or being active members of a military
or paramilitary organisation. We also exclude overseas ‘contractors’ providing
security and other private services related to the occupation of Iraq.

Included are all others killed violently, including regular local police forces.

As every society, at war or at peace, has police forces who live and work among
the civilian population, we consider such police forces to be a customary
part of civil society, and therefore include them in our civilian count.
However we do not include police ‘commando’ units who work under
the Interior Ministry and are best described as paramilitary.

Under one special circumstance we also include members of Iraqi military or
paramilitary/militia forces in our database, namely when they are killed
— i.e. summarily executed — after capture. Under those conditions
even military personnel automatically acquire ‘protected person’ (effectively,
POW) status under International Humanitarian Law, and this distinction is respected
by IBC.